I completely understand where you're coming from. It is good to have balance and equal representation of both sides and for parties to work together to get stuff done for the people. However, in Illinois, no representation ever seems to be given the Republicans these days. The views of the millions of Republicans and moderates in the state are consistently denied and trumped in favor of the views of the millions-more Democrats, that are most heavily concentrated in one county. And the Democrats know all they need to do is to continue to falsely accuse Republicans as racist, and they'll continue to cruise to victory. It'd be nice if the Democrats in this state would open their minds and the hearts every now and then to the other side, but they don't seem to care. Take a look at my blog about how the Democrats slapped Republicans in the face with the most gerrymandered and politically-motivated (rather than geographically-motivated) new legislative maps ever. It's basically them saying, 'we hate Republicans, we don't want any more of you, and we'd rather have less of you, and we will do whatever we can to make sure that you guys have as few seats at the table as possible.'

But that's not just Illinois, it happens in other states as well and is the nature of the beast. As for the views of the minority being trumped by the majority, again, that's the nature of the beast and happens in other states. Can you imagine being a liberal in Utah or Kansas.

But that's not just Illinois, it happens in other states as well and is the nature of the beast. As for the views of the minority being trumped by the majority, again, that's the nature of the beast and happens in other states. Can you imagine being a liberal in Utah or Kansas.

Yeah, but the minority in Illinois is so large, compared to those other states. So large that you could make a Republican state out of it that would be about the size of Indiana.

In addition, it can't be so bad in Utah or Kansas. Recently, Kansas elected liberal Kathleen Sebelius as their governor and Utah elected Jon Huntsman, a moderate who liberals can't say enough nice things about. The last decent Republican governor Illinois had was Jim Edgar, which was like 20 years ago.

This says it all to me. Obviously, you either A.) Haven't actually looked at Huntsman record as a conservative, or B.) Just want to say that Kansas and Utah are more "fair" than Illinois.

Seriously, it isn't any worse for you in IL than for D's in Utah. You could always move to a swing state if you wanted it another way. I hear Ohio is nice this time of year

He does hold conservative positions, but he also holds plenty of moderate or liberal-leaning positions, and he also made strong efforts to reach out to the other side.

As for moving, I really do like the state. My whole family and most of my friends are here. And there are lot of great resources this state has to offer. Me moving would basically be letting the liberals win. Plus, if I moved to a state with more reasonable leaders, I wouldn't have anything to bitch about anymore!

All kidding aside, I still have some hope for this state. Particularly because it has so much to offer. There is still great potential, but it is unfortunate that the political environment is preventing the state's full potential from being realized. I'm still hoping that people will come around and we'll get back to more bipartisanship and responsible leadership. Illinois did make progress by choosing a moderate Republican to fill Obama's old Senate seat. Senator Kirk recently had a stroke, but is expected to make a full recovery. In addition, Illinois elected two Republicans to the statewide offices of Treasurer and Comptroller. Meanwhile, popular Democrats occupy the Secretary of State and Attorney General positions. Now, if only we could find a good Governor everyone can agree on!

Same thing here in California - Southern Californians (particularly those in Orange County) always want to separate from Northern California.

Wouldn't ever happen, though. Southern California includes Los Angeles, which is anything but conservative. Also, San Diego is pretty RINO. Votes republican usually (though I think in 2008 we went democrat if I'm not mistaken).

Why not let Washington, DC become the 51st state? Its population is larger than Alaska, the citizens already pay federal income tax but do not have a vote in the House or Senate. I find it funny that many Republican scream about unfair taxation and use many allusions back the Revolutionary time but when the topic of DC statehood comes up the shoot it down as a bad idea. I guess this rhetoric only works if Republicans benefit.

Yeah, but you live in a swing state where there is a back-and-forth and give-and-take. You also live in a state where no one area has dominant control. You should consider yourself lucky.

However, there is no back-and-forth or give-and-take in my state anymore. We used to have a pretty balanced map actually that was crafted in a more bipartisan nature after the 2000 census. Several suburban Congressional districts went back and forth between the Ds and Rs, in addition to some downstate districts as well. I think one year, the Ds had 11 seats and the Rs had 8, and it switched to 11 for the Rs and 8 for the Ds again. The way the new map is drawn, it will be about 13 districts for the Ds and 5 for the Rs for the next 10 years. And the districts don't make any sense and are so confusing for the people, where neighborhoods are split down the middle and districts are split into multiple almost-isolated nodes. The political environment is so toxic now...nothing's bipartisan and that's wrong. And all because one county in the state is so heavily populated and heavily partisan, it outweighs the will of the rest of the state.

I think you should stop whining. The reason that Cook County dominates the rest of the state is because more people live there than in other parts of the state. They choose to live there because there's more opportunities and more amenities there than in other parts of Illinois like Peoria or Cairo.

The last time I looked, Chicago doesn't discourage conservatives from living there. They don't bar conservatives from political activity either. It's the conservatives who self-select themselves out of power in Chicago and Cook County by backing political ideas that don't appeal to the vast majority of Chicago area voters -- or the voters in and around most other major American cities. That's the essence and basic fairness of one-man, one-vote. Maybe if Illinois Republicans parted with the narrow-minded ideology of the national Republican Party, they might actually elect Republicans to office in Chicago and Cook County. NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is a Republican, but of course, "real" Republicans consider him and every other Republican who doesn't cater to the Right Wing to be a RINO.

The US Constitution guarantees everyone the right to say what he/she wants, but it doesn't guarantee that people have to vote for candidates who belong to political parties they don't like. You being a conservative and living in liberal Democratic-dominated Illinois is no more unfair to you than someone being a liberal and living in conservative Republican-dominated Mississippi. That you are so upset about this says that while you are complaining about a lack of bipartisanship, you are really pushing your own very partisan agenda.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

I think you should stop whining. The reason that Cook County dominates the rest of the state is because more people live there than in other parts of the state. They choose to live there because there's more opportunities and more amenities there than in other parts of Illinois like Peoria or Cairo.

The last time I looked, Chicago doesn't discourage conservatives from living there. They don't bar conservatives from political activity either. It's the conservatives who self-select themselves out of power in Chicago and Cook County by backing political ideas that don't appeal to the vast majority of Chicago area voters -- or the voters in and around most other major American cities. That's the essence and basic fairness of one-man, one-vote. Maybe if Illinois Republicans parted with the narrow-minded ideology of the national Republican Party, they might actually elect Republicans to office in Chicago and Cook County. NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is a Republican, but of course, "real" Republicans consider him and every other Republican who doesn't cater to the Right Wing to be a RINO.

The US Constitution guarantees everyone the right to say what he/she wants, but it doesn't guarantee that people have to vote for candidates who belong to political parties they don't like. You being a conservative and living in liberal Democratic-dominated Illinois is no more unfair to you than someone being a liberal and living in conservative Republican-dominated Mississippi. That you are so upset about this says that while you are complaining about a lack of bipartisanship, you are really pushing your own very partisan agenda.

I think I'm entitled to whine all I want, considering I live here and have to pay the hefty price of living here. You don't.

And because of that, I know that people are actually leaving Cook County in droves because of their oppressively high taxes, regulations, and costs of living. There is no opportunity...people are leaving. Just look around at Cyburbia...do I need to count the people that have had to leave for other states to seek opportunities? We have extraordinarily high unemployment and policies which are causing businesses to move to Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and other nearby states. The people that remain in Illinois and that moved here in the early-mid 2000s are instead moving primarily to the suburban counties which are more Republican and have less regulations and taxes, as well as the college towns (Champaign, Bloomington, DeKalb). Nevertheless, Cook County continues to dominate and control the rest of the state because it is so partisan. As a result, these places in other parts of Illinois continue to be impacted by the problems created by Cook County politicians who dominate the state.

And again, you don't live here, so you really don't know about the internal politics of the state, so I think it is shortsighted of you to preach to me that I am pushing some sort of partisan agenda, when I have had to directly deal with the consequences of the policies in this state, where things are so divisive that even the most moderate of Republicans can't get anywhere with the Democratic leadership that has strangled our state. The Republican party in Illinois is actually largely controlled by moderate Republicans in suburban DuPage County and the other collar counties, very reasonable people who care more about the economy than anything. Many of them are liberal on social issues. But no matter who from the Republican party is elected in these disticts, Democrats have largely been unwilling to work with and compromise with them. And as I said previously, the political environment used to be better. The Republicans and Democrats used to sit down together and craft bills and the congressional maps, but not anymore. And it's not the Republicans who are to blame. The Republicans have made every effort to be reasonable, but they continually have the door slammed in their face. We've even elected moderate Republicans to the state treasurer and comptroller positons (Dan Rutherford and Judy Baar Topinka), but Governor Pat Quinn and House Speaker Mike Madigan refuse to work with them to find practical solutions to our budgetary problems, insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. I'm sorry, but when you're the party in control, part of being a responsible and fair leader involves representing everyone and working with the other side and trying as best you can to represent their views as well, while creating solutions to problems.

I think I'm entitled to whine all I want, considering I live here and have to pay the hefty price of living here. You don't.

I think the point is that you are complaining about an issue that isn't a singular issue, nor is it a party issue. You do have a right to complain, but when there are literally (do I sound like Gingrich) millions of people that have the same "problem" as you, it doesn't hit as hard as unfair. It comes off more as my side is losing where I live and I don't like it.

Originally posted by illinoisplanner

And because of that, I know that people are actually leaving Cook County in droves because of their oppressively high taxes, regulations, and costs of living. There is no opportunity...people are leaving. Just look around at Cyburbia...do I need to count the people that have had to leave for other states to seek opportunities? We have extraordinarily high unemployment and policies which are causing businesses to move to Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and other nearby states. The people that remain in Illinois and that moved here in the early-mid 2000s are instead moving primarily to the suburban counties which are more Republican and have less regulations and taxes, as well as the college towns (Champaign, Bloomington, DeKalb). Nevertheless, Cook County continues to dominate and control the rest of the state because it is so partisan. As a result, these places in other parts of Illinois continue to be impacted by the problems created by Cook County politicians who dominate the state.

People are leaving Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Missouri for other states too. It isn't like because they are led by Republican's that EVERYONE is moving there. Nor is it that Illinois is led by Democrats that people are moving out. The economy is probably a small factor in people's decision making right now...let's be honest about this....

Originally posted by illinoisplanner

And again, you don't live here, so you really don't know about the internal politics of the state, so I think it is shortsighted of you to preach to me that I am pushing some sort of partisan agenda, when I have had to directly deal with the consequences of the policies in this state, where things are so divisive that even the most moderate of Republicans can't get anywhere with the Democratic leadership that has strangled our state. The Republican party in Illinois is actually largely controlled by moderate Republicans in suburban DuPage County and the other collar counties, very reasonable people who care more about the economy than anything. Many of them are liberal on social issues. But no matter who from the Republican party is elected in these disticts, Democrats have largely been unwilling to work with and compromise with them. And as I said previously, the political environment used to be better. The Republicans and Democrats used to sit down together and craft bills and the congressional maps, but not anymore. And it's not the Republicans who are to blame. The Republicans have made every effort to be reasonable, but they continually have the door slammed in their face. We've even elected moderate Republicans to the state treasurer and comptroller positons (Dan Rutherford and Judy Baar Topinka), but Governor Pat Quinn and House Speaker Mike Madigan refuse to work with them to find practical solutions to our budgetary problems, insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. I'm sorry, but when you're the party in control, part of being a responsible and fair leader involves representing everyone and working with the other side and trying as best you can to represent their views as well, while creating solutions to problems.

IP I respect that you strong in your convictions. But when you wear them on your sleeve, and can't see both sides of the coin, there is a good chance that you are going to get "preached" to. Especially when you obviously are unable, or unwilling to see that those politicians obviously speak to a large portion of people that live in Illinois (yep it is the amalgamation of both cities and counties people that make up a state). Again, this isn't just a "problem" in Illinois. It goes on all over the country, to both sides of the aisle.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

I think the point is that you are complaining about an issue that isn't a singular issue, nor is it a party issue. You do have a right to complain, but when there are literally (do I sound like Gingrich) millions of people that have the same "problem" as you, it doesn't hit as hard as unfair. It comes off more as my side is losing where I live and I don't like it.

But it is a singular issue. It's so easy for people in other states who don't live here to sit back from their out-of-state armchairs and act like it's a just a Republicans/Democrats majority/minority thing, but it's not. Illinois is a unique state with unique circumstances, population makeup, and severe leadership and corruption problems. It's easy for people in other states to think all states are the same, all Democrats are the same, all Republicans are the same, all state leadership is the same across this country. The fact of the matter is, it's not. There are state leaders that are more fair and more willing to work with the other side in this country. There are leaders that are more effective. There are states that are doing pretty well in spite of largely one-party rule. There are also states that switch sides regularly and seem to be doing pretty well.

People are leaving Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Missouri for other states too. It isn't like because they are led by Republican's that EVERYONE is moving there. Nor is it that Illinois is led by Democrats that people are moving out. The economy is probably a small factor in people's decision making right now...let's be honest about this....

True, people are leaving the Midwest as a whole, but the fact of the matter is, those other states have better economies than Illinois does, and it has a lot to do with political leadership. Am I saying that they are better off because they are led by Republicans or that Illinois would be better off it was led by Republicans. No. There are many competent Democrats leading states out there, and there are also leaders that work with both sides to solve problems for the state. I would gladly have competent fair Democratic leadership in this state. But the Democrats that have led Illinois for the longest time don't do that, nor do they seem to care much about economic development. And the economy is a huge factor for a lot of people leaving this state. Right up there with the cold weather, followed by corruption.

IP I respect that you strong in your convictions. But when you wear them on your sleeve, and can't see both sides of the coin, there is a good chance that you are going to get "preached" to. Especially when you obviously are unable, or unwilling to see that those politicians obviously speak to a large portion of people that live in Illinois (yep it is the amalgamation of both cities and counties people that make up a state). Again, this isn't just a "problem" in Illinois. It goes on all over the country, to both sides of the aisle.

But the politicians don't really speak to a large portion of people that live in Illinois. They know that all they need to do is win a large plurality in Cook County, and they do this largely through scare tactics, labeling the other side as racist and making falsehoods that the other side is going to take away their benefits. That's wrong and irresponsible. And not only do Republicans in this state suffer, everyone suffers. The people who live in poverty who vote for these crooks continue to suffer. This isn't your usual state. This is a state of epedemic corruption. I would be more than welcome to the idea of having competent fair leaders who were Democrat in the governor's mansion and running the state house. But that's not the case. We have a system of machine politics and a culture of corruption that leads to the unique problems we have in this state. And as a result, I think it's fair for the rest of the state (Democrats included...) to want to escape from Chicago, the machine, and the corruption.

But it is a singular issue. It's so easy for people in other states who don't live here to sit back from their out-of-state armchairs and act like it's a just a Republicans/Democrats majority/minority thing, but it's not. Illinois is a unique state with unique circumstances, population makeup, and severe leadership and corruption problems. It's easy for people in other states to think all states are the same, all Democrats are the same, all Republicans are the same, all state leadership is the same across this country. The fact of the matter is, it's not. There are state leaders that are more fair and more willing to work with the other side in this country. There are leaders that are more effective. There are states that are doing pretty well in spite of largely one-party rule. There are also states that switch sides regularly and seem to be doing pretty well.

It is NOT a singular issue at all. People in Western Massachusetts dance to tunes called by Bostonians no matter if it's good for their part of the state or not. If you go to Georgia, I suspect that you will find exactly the same arguments/sentiments about Atlanta that you're expressing about Chicago from people living in the southern and western parts of the state. When more and more people are moving into fewer ever-growing metros at the expense of smaller metros and less populated areas, this imbalance is what you get.

You want to see the tail wagging the dog? Take a look at NY. NYS has a population of 19+ million. 10+ million are squeezed in the "Downstate" area of NYC, Long Island, and a couple of counties immediately north of the Bronx. They "rule" NYS, and it has nothing to do with whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They just have more people.

Upstate is very different from Downstate NY. Its largest city is Buffalo (275,000 population), and its largest metro, Erie County, has fewer than 1 million people. Upstate contains the largest wilderness area east of the Mississippi in the Adirondak Forest Preserve. It borders 2 of the Great Lakes and is filled with beautiful glacial lakes (the Finger Lakes and Chautauqua Lake among others) plus dozens of state parks. Aside from the "big" cities along I-90, most of Upstate is farming and forestry country dotted with small cities and even smaller towns. It is amazingly beautiful and full of friendly, hard-working people, but the fact is that it's economically backward. It's poor -- like the hinterlands of most big metros all over this country -- because the factories that once provided jobs for hundreds of people in these small towns and cities have vanished. It's not their fault. It's not any political party's fault. It's the fault of global forces that individuals really cannot control.

That most of the people in the largest metros tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates is NOT the Democrats' fault. It's the Republicans' fault for not having an agenda that appeals to the kind of people attracted to large urban centers: people of diverse race, ethnicity, religion, birthplaces, and life-style, and people who approve of that kind of diversity. On nearly every social issue that comes up, the GOP stands with the narrow-minded and the bigoted. On most issues that matter to well educated, middle-class people in cities like Chicago or New York, the GOP stands against reproductive rights, against environmental regulation, against consumer protection, against funding for the arts etc. On most issues that matter to working class people, the GOP stands against minimum wages, against worker protections, against funding public education, etc. For a lot of years, that won the Republican Party lots of elections, but that's changing as younger voters have different agendas.

In the so-called "marketplace of ideas" the ideas that the Republicans are peddling are just not selling to the residents of the large urban metros. Since nobody is guaranteed a particular "share" of any market, the GOP has to change its product or face the long-term consequences. In NYS, the long-term consequences are becoming very clear: the last state-wide election that the Republicans won was George Pataki's reelection in 2002, but that's the only GOP win, state-wide, in more than 20 years. The Republican majority in the NYS Senate has been leaching away over the last decade and is down to a 1 or 2 member majority. It's not going to get better for the NYS GOP when moderate Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg can't pass the GOP's litmus tests for RW political correctness, so the GOP nominates embarrassments like Carl Paladino.

I don't know Illinois' politics but I suspect that the same kind of pandering to an ever-shrinking group's narrow views afflicts that state's politics.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

It is NOT a singular issue at all. People in Western Massachusetts dance to tunes called by Bostonians no matter if it's good for their part of the state or not. If you go to Georgia, I suspect that you will find exactly the same arguments/sentiments about Atlanta that you're expressing about Chicago from people living in the southern and western parts of the state. When more and more people are moving into fewer ever-growing metros at the expense of smaller metros and less populated areas, this imbalance is what you get.

You want to see the tail wagging the dog? Take a look at NY. NYS has a population of 19+ million. 10+ million are squeezed in the "Downstate" area of NYC, Long Island, and a couple of counties immediately north of the Bronx. They "rule" NYS, and it has nothing to do with whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They just have more people.

Upstate is very different from Downstate NY. Its largest city is Buffalo (275,000 population), and its largest metro, Erie County, has fewer than 1 million people. Upstate contains the largest wilderness area east of the Mississippi in the Adirondak Forest Preserve. It borders 2 of the Great Lakes and is filled with beautiful glacial lakes (the Finger Lakes and Chautauqua Lake among others) plus dozens of state parks. Aside from the "big" cities along I-90, most of Upstate is farming and forestry country dotted with small cities and even smaller towns. It is amazingly beautiful and full of friendly, hard-working people, but the fact is that it's economically backward. It's poor -- like the hinterlands of most big metros all over this country -- because the factories that once provided jobs for hundreds of people in these small towns and cities have vanished. It's not their fault. It's not any political party's fault. It's the fault of global forces that individuals really cannot control.

That most of the people in the largest metros tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates is NOT the Democrats' fault. It's the Republicans' fault for not having an agenda that appeals to the kind of people attracted to large urban centers: people of diverse race, ethnicity, religion, birthplaces, and life-style, and people who approve of that kind of diversity. On nearly every social issue that comes up, the GOP stands with the narrow-minded and the bigoted. On most issues that matter to well educated, middle-class people in cities like Chicago or New York, the GOP stands against reproductive rights, against environmental regulation, against consumer protection, against funding for the arts etc. On most issues that matter to working class people, the GOP stands against minimum wages, against worker protections, against funding public education, etc. For a lot of years, that won the Republican Party lots of elections, but that's changing as younger voters have different agendas.

In the so-called "marketplace of ideas" the ideas that the Republicans are peddling are just not selling to the residents of the large urban metros. Since nobody is guaranteed a particular "share" of any market, the GOP has to change its product or face the long-term consequences. In NYS, the long-term consequences are becoming very clear: the last state-wide election that the Republicans won was George Pataki's reelection in 2002, but that's the only GOP win, state-wide, in more than 20 years. The Republican majority in the NYS Senate has been leaching away over the last decade and is down to a 1 or 2 member majority. It's not going to get better for the NYS GOP when moderate Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg can't pass the GOP's litmus tests for RW political correctness, so the GOP nominates embarrassments like Carl Paladino.

I don't know Illinois' politics but I suspect that the same kind of pandering to an ever-shrinking group's narrow views afflicts that state's politics.

I understand that there are similar geographic, political, and social divides in other states, but my point was that Illinois faces unique circumstances, issues, and divides that differ from other states. For example, in New York, many of the cities in Upstate are also Democrat, in addition to the suburbs of NYC. Here in Illinois, most of downstate is Republican, and so are the suburbs. It's basically one-city rule, rather than something a little more spread out. In addition, for the most part, other states have not recently produced the level of corruption and crime that has been seen in Illinois. How many other governors have been recently sentenced to jail for 14 years for trying to sell a Senate seat, as part of machine pay-to-play politics? Also, as you point out, the Republican party in your state sounds very set-in-their-ways, while the Republican party in Illinois has made huge strides in recent years and is becoming much more big-tent and progressive. As I mentioned before, the Illinois Republican party is largely run by moderate Republicans in DuPage County and the other collar counties. The elected state and county leaders and business leaders in these parts are very educated and appeal to the middle and working class people in these areas. These Republican leaders are more about economic issues than they are about social issues, and some of them are even liberal on social issues. Some folks in certain parts of downstate may be more far-right, but at the end of the day, they're going to support the Republican candidates. In addition, a lot of younger Republicans are being elected, such as U.S. Reps. Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger, and an increasing number of young moderate Republicans are running for statehouse offices in the suburbs and are likely to win. So, really, there is not a whole lot of pandering to an "ever-shrinking group's narrow views". In fact, the Republican party in Illinois has been gaining a lot of ground, winning the treasurer and comptroller positions, taking back Obama's senate seat, flipping the U.S. House delegation in our favor, and coming very close to winning the governor's mansion. So, I guess that's why it's so frustrating for me, because the tide has been turning in our favor, but the Democrats are working to gerrymander their way back to dominance, all while doing nothing to solve our state's budget and economic problems. Hopefully a reasonable electorate will be able to trump the gerrymandering, but it's going to be very tough to make progress with Democratic leadership unwilling to be bipartisan and compromise.

I understand that there are similar geographic, political, and social divides in other states, but my point was that Illinois faces unique circumstances, issues, and divides that differ from other states. For example, in New York, many of the cities in Upstate are also Democrat, in addition to the suburbs of NYC. Here in Illinois, most of downstate is Republican, and so are the suburbs. It's basically one-city rule, rather than something a little more spread out. In addition, for the most part, other states have not recently produced the level of corruption and crime that has been seen in Illinois. How many other governors have been recently sentenced to jail for 14 years for trying to sell a Senate seat, as part of machine pay-to-play politics? Also, as you point out, the Republican party in your state sounds very set-in-their-ways, while the Republican party in Illinois has made huge strides in recent years and is becoming much more big-tent and progressive. As I mentioned before, the Illinois Republican party is largely run by moderate Republicans in DuPage County and the other collar counties. The elected state and county leaders and business leaders in these parts are very educated and appeal to the middle and working class people in these areas. These Republican leaders are more about economic issues than they are about social issues, and some of them are even liberal on social issues. Some folks in certain parts of downstate may be more far-right, but at the end of the day, they're going to support the Republican candidates. In addition, a lot of younger Republicans are being elected, such as U.S. Reps. Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger, and an increasing number of young moderate Republicans are running for statehouse offices in the suburbs and are likely to win. So, really, there is not a whole lot of pandering to an "ever-shrinking group's narrow views". In fact, the Republican party in Illinois has been gaining a lot of ground, winning the treasurer and comptroller positions, taking back Obama's senate seat, flipping the U.S. House delegation in our favor, and coming very close to winning the governor's mansion. So, I guess that's why it's so frustrating for me, because the tide has been turning in our favor, but the Democrats are working to gerrymander their way back to dominance, all while doing nothing to solve our state's budget and economic problems. Hopefully a reasonable electorate will be able to trump the gerrymandering, but it's going to be very tough to make progress with Democratic leadership unwilling to be bipartisan and compromise.

Again ip. you seem to suffer from a bad case of tunnel vision. You come at the issue as one who is a member of the out party and a life long resident of the Metro area. If the situation was reversed, you wouldn't think-i.e. the R's being in power-that there was a problem. Chicago is the big player in Illinois. That is no different than any large city in a state. Indianapolis has a lot of influence with the lower 2/3rds of Indiana. It's the nature of the beast.

Again ip. you seem to suffer from a bad case of tunnel vision. You come at the issue as one who is a member of the out party and a life long resident of the Metro area. If the situation was reversed, you wouldn't think-i.e. the R's being in power-that there was a problem. Chicago is the big player in Illinois. That is no different than any large city in a state. Indianapolis has a lot of influence with the lower 2/3rds of Indiana. It's the nature of the beast.

I don't think so. If you look at one of my earlier posts in this thread, I actually said something along the lines of 'I really don't want the rest of the state to separate from Chicago'. At the end of the day, I just want our state to run efficiently, fairly, and for it to reach its full potential. With all its economic resources, Illinois should be an economic engine as powerful as Texas, but because of the incompetent, corrupt, and divisive leaders that continue to be elected, we are getting nowhere and not reaching our full potential. Instead we have high unemployment, high deficits, and a business climate that is unfriendly. My dad actually voted for a downstate Democrat, Glen Poshard, over George Ryan for the governor's race, back in 1998. It's amazing to think where we might be now if we had a competent fair agreeable downstate governor, instead of someone who was in bed with the corrupt Chicago machine politics. That being said, I don't think it always has to be someone from downstate, but it would be nice if there was a little give and take. At the end of the day, I just want our state to be run well. I don't want it to be divided. I would much rather prefer a state that was the envy of the country, not the laughingstock. I really don't care who's in charge, just as long as both sides got together to get things done. But unfortunately, the way things are now, and the way the tone has been set for the next 10 years, it doesn't look like that's going to happen, sadly. And I guess that's why I'm leaning towards the secession movement at the time (even though this secession movement doesn't stand much of a chance anyways), because it would be nice to break free from the cesspool of corruption and partisanship that has defined Chicago lately.

I don't think so. If you look at one of my earlier posts in this thread, I actually said something along the lines of 'I really don't want the rest of the state to separate from Chicago'. At the end of the day, I just want our state to run efficiently, fairly, and for it to reach its full potential. With all its economic resources, Illinois should be an economic engine as powerful as Texas, but because of the incompetent, corrupt, and divisive leaders that continue to be elected, we are getting nowhere and not reaching our full potential. Instead we have high unemployment, high deficits, and a business climate that is unfriendly. My dad actually voted for a downstate Democrat, Glen Poshard, over George Ryan for the governor's race, back in 1998. It's amazing to think where we might be now if we had a competent fair agreeable downstate governor, instead of someone who was in bed with the corrupt Chicago machine politics. That being said, I don't think it always has to be someone from downstate, but it would be nice if there was a little give and take. At the end of the day, I just want our state to be run well. I don't want it to be divided. I would much rather prefer a state that was the envy of the country, not the laughingstock. I really don't care who's in charge, just as long as both sides got together to get things done. But unfortunately, the way things are now, and the way the tone has been set for the next 10 years, it doesn't look like that's going to happen, sadly. And I guess that's why I'm leaning towards the secession movement at the time (even though this secession movement doesn't stand much of a chance anyways), because it would be nice to break free from the cesspool of corruption and partisanship that has defined Chicago lately.

Democrats from Chicago don't have a monopoly on corruption.

"Machine politics" is like "pork barrel spending": it's only corrupt or bad when you're a member of the out party or federal largesse is going to somebody else's Congressional district.

Secession is never going to happen. Never. States are considered sovereign entities by the US Constitution. Federal territories can be split apart but not states. The only state that was ever split into 2 was Virginia, and that happened during the Civil War when, technically, Virginia had declared itself a non-state by seceding. The western counties controlled by federal military forces were first named a "territory" and then admitted to the Union in 1863 as West Virginia.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

"Machine politics" is like "pork barrel spending": it's only corrupt or bad when you're a member of the out party or federal largesse is going to somebody else's Congressional district.

Secession is never going to happen. Never. States are considered sovereign entities by the US Constitution. Federal territories can be split apart but not states. The only state that was ever split into 2 was Virginia, and that happened during the Civil War when, technically, Virginia had declared itself a non-state by seceding. The western counties controlled by federal military forces were first named a "territory" and then admitted to the Union in 1863 as West Virginia.

Yeah, but they're certainly much more corrupt and more organized in their corruption. Sure, you can have bad apples in any party, but the Chicago Democratic machine is one of the most corrupt forces in the nation, and to think otherwise would make you ignorant to history and very naive.

I know secession does not stand much of a chance, but it's interesting to hypothesize and discuss. If USA Today publishes an article about it, it obviously means that there are significant problems in this state for people to seriously consider the concept.

Yeah, but they're certainly much more corrupt and more organized in their corruption. Sure, you can have bad apples in any party, but the Chicago Democratic machine is one of the most corrupt forces in the nation, and to think otherwise would make you ignorant to history and very naive.

I know secession does not stand much of a chance, but it's interesting to hypothesize and discuss. If USA Today publishes an article about it, it obviously means that there are significant problems in this state for people to seriously consider the concept.

You might want to check out the number of Bush Administration aides who ended up convicted of influence peddling. You see the Chicago Dems simply because you don't like them. If they were Republicans, you wouldn't have a problem with them. You are simply being stubbornly partisan about this.

Secession stands no chance because there is no constitution means of making it happen. Politicians propose lots of stupid things, and on slow news days, newspapers publish stories about them.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

You might want to check out the number of Bush Administration aides who ended up convicted of influence peddling. You see the Chicago Dems simply because you don't like them. If they were Republicans, you wouldn't have a problem with them. You are simply being stubbornly partisan about this.

Secession stands no chance because there is no constitution means of making it happen. Politicians propose lots of stupid things, and on slow news days, newspapers publish stories about them.

I'm well aware of aides in the Bush administration being convicted of crimes, but I see no need to veer off-topic by tying in national politics in to a thread about a secession movement in Illinois. And if you would actually read instead of trying to label me as partisan and shove things down my throat, you would see that I don't have a problem with Democrats as a whole, but rather I have a problem with corruption in this state, most of which stems from Chicago and the machine politics that runs our state. And yes, Republicans like George Ryan were in on the machine too, and they are no better. I don't like corrupt politicians, I don't like ineffective leaders, and I don't like machine politics...that's the bottom line. I am not being stubbornly partisan about this. How many times do I have to say that I would have no problem with a Democratic governor or House Speaker if they were effective and fair leaders and got things done in our state!!!!! Maybe you should read my posts before responding to them and labeling me as partisan about this situation!

Secession could happen if there was enough political will. But there's not. And for the umpteenth time, I'll reiterate that I don't really wish for secession to happen. I just wish our leaders were fair and effective leaders. But it goes to show you how deep the divide is in our state that this proposal is so often mentioned. My wish is not for secession, but for the leaders of this state to realize that the rest of the state feels left out and alienated, and that they would work to represent us and our concerns, rather than continue to increase the divide.

Linda, you don't really need to defend the Chicago Machine. Even as a Democrat, I'm sure if you lived here long enough, you would see how devastating it has been to our state.

I don't know much about the state of affairs in Illinois, but ip's assertion of pervasive corruption in Chicago is certainly well-supported by historical evidence. Still, how do we really know that Chicago politicians are more corrupt than their counterparts in NYC, Miami, Boston, Buffalo, or Los Angeles? We don't. Perhaps one might argue that the most corrupt place in America is Nassau County on Long Island, NY, which has been run by a Republican machine for decades. My point is that big cities are all going to have their share of corruption no matter who's in charge, and it's not acceptable but that's a reality.

It's bad for everyone in the state, not just the Democrats. However, in Indiana, it's just one bad apple...an isolated incident. In Illinois, the situation is much more severe, where you have a culture of corruption stemming from Chicago that has involved mostly Ds and some Rs and has been very damaging to the rest of the state.

I don't know much about the state of affairs in Illinois, but ip's assertion of pervasive corruption in Chicago is certainly well-supported by historical evidence. Still, how do we really know that Chicago politicians are more corrupt than their counterparts in NYC, Miami, Boston, Buffalo, or Los Angeles? We don't. Perhaps one might argue that the most corrupt place in America is Nassau County on Long Island, NY, which has been run by a Republican machine for decades. My point is that big cities are all going to have their share of corruption no matter who's in charge, and it's not acceptable but that's a reality.Oh yeah, here's a refresher on how zoning works in the Windy City:

This is dead-on. I think the reason that this is so is because there's simply much more money floating around large governments than there is in smaller places, and more anonymity in government so that individuals can't be watched as closely either.

I also think that some places have developed a political culture that lends itself more to corruption and nasty machine politics than other places. IMO, that's the political culture in Erie County, NY which contains Buffalo. I lived in Buffalo for 20 years, and I will never live in Buffalo or Erie County again because all the politicians there are in office primarily to feather their own nests, be they Democrats or Republicans, city or county governments. That's just how they operate.

It's totally different than the way things operate in Chautauqua County, probably because we have about only 13-14% of the population of our northern neighbor although the two counties are about the same physical size (about 1000 square miles). That does't mean that our politicians are by their natures more honest. It's just that there's much less temptation and less opportunity for feathering one's nest through political graft, especially since our county has a tradition of swapping out pols with regularity.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

As a recent Illinois resident I think the toxic political environment is endemic of the larger national picture. Politics in general has become so partisan in this country. In Illinois corruption knows no political parties, members of both parties have gotten caught up in the corruption machine. IP, Illinois is more of a moderate state than you have shown on here. Peoria, C-U, MetroEast, Springfield and the QC lean slightly democratic, while B-N, Suburban Chicago, Suburban Peoria and the rural counties tend to be republican. I agree that Chicago has a lot of influence, but the sheer amount of population in the Chicago area is going to influence the state's politics. Even though the rest of the state subsidizes a lot of the infrastructure improvements in Chicago, Chicago's sales, property and income taxes help the rest of the state. Should there be more moderation in Illinois? Sure, but the Chicago breaking off is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Screw Quinn and others, the real political master in Illinois is Michael Madigan. Republicans hate him and Democrats fear him, I truly believe if you could get him out of office you would see more bi-partisanship in the Illinois legislature.

I think the bigger issue is the state's geographic size, people living in Cario or Carbondale certainly feel like Springfield is light years away and Chicago is another planet.

As a recent Illinois resident I think the toxic political environment is endemic of the larger national picture. Politics in general has become so partisan in this country. In Illinois corruption knows no political parties, members of both parties have gotten caught up in the corruption machine. IP, Illinois is more of a moderate state than you have shown on here. Peoria, C-U, MetroEast, Springfield and the QC lean slightly democratic, while B-N, Suburban Chicago, Suburban Peoria and the rural counties tend to be republican. I agree that Chicago has a lot of influence, but the sheer amount of population in the Chicago area is going to influence the state's politics. Even though the rest of the state subsidizes a lot of the infrastructure improvements in Chicago, Chicago's sales, property and income taxes help the rest of the state. Should there be more moderation in Illinois? Sure, but the Chicago breaking off is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Screw Quinn and others, the real political master in Illinois is Michael Madigan. Republicans hate him and Democrats fear him, I truly believe if you could get him out of office you would see more bi-partisanship in the Illinois legislature.

I think the bigger issue is the state's geographic size, people living in Cario or Carbondale certainly feel like Springfield is light years away and Chicago is another planet.

You're right, Illinois is more moderate than many people think. I'm sorry if I implied anything to the contrary. I guess that's why I'm a little upset, because since it is moderate, its leadership should theoretically alternate between Republican and Democrat more often, instead of coming off as this liberal bastion ruled by Chicago. In addition, its leaders should come from all corners of the state, rather than all the state's leaders living within a few blocks of each other in Chicago, like what was seen during the Blago administration. You're right, Michael Madigan is the problem. Always has been. Blago was practically a puppet, and Quinn is more of a figurehead. And I really think it's the suburbs that get screwed the most. They contribute heavily in sales, property, and income taxes, with a large percentage of their money going into Chicago, rather than their own communities, despite the fact that so many suburban folks are living, working, and playing exclusively in the suburbs, with only the occassional trip to "the city".